God and Sin

Andrewn · Aug 11, 2020

cvanwey said:
1. Genesis states God made humans in His image. This would mean that all have the same innate instinct to invoke intentional agency, not just some. Please remember there exists some reflexive/protective traits for which we cannot suppress or control.

You probably already guessed that I would say "free will." OTOH, animals have strong "instincts."

cvanwey said:
2. If you accept evolution by natural selection, going back again to Genesis, you mean to tell me God 'created' Adam through the process of macroevolution? If God made Adam in His image, I trust I do not need to tell you what the earliest homo sapiens looked like.

God's image in humans is not physical.

cvanwey said:
3. If God's plan was for humans to be His top priority creation, why the process of convoluted macroevolution?

God loves variety and wants humans to share that love / appreciation for nature. Why else do all people want hoses by the ocean or lake?

cvanwey said:
I gather it is purely revelation alone, and has virtually nothing to do with your perception of 'design'. Why can I assert this? If I was to raise so much doubt, enough to where you have no choice but to abandon your prior notion(s) of 'the world is so well designed', would you even start to think there is no creator? I doubt it... Please be honest

Some people find evidence for God in the universe or in physics and mathematics. I find incredible intelligent design in plants, animals, and humans. This is starting from anatomy to physiology to biochemistry which are all so intelligently designed even at the sub cellular level. You will not be able to convince me otherwise because you may be able to study these subjects to the same depth but will not be able to study these subjects in more depth. Now, are there people who studied the same and do not believe. Most likely yes. I guess that is their problem not mine.

cvanwey said:
What say-you to all the ones whom are just as earnest, in their contact of their claims of contact from an external agency - which opposes yours? How are you to verify theirs is counterfeit, and yours is real? And before you answer, please remember the sole reason [you] likely believe - Revelation. -- A sole concept many opposing believers likely ascribe to as well.

Like I said I believe there is only one God and I don't use the counterfeit except to describe animism and polytheism. But even these occasionally have a belief in one spirit behind them such as the native American Great Spirit. We have distinguishable finger prints, voices, and facial characteristics. Specialists can read a letter and determine whether Paul wrote it or not. I believe we similarly have distinguishable personal religions. Everyone's belief is different from others, even those who share his same "denomination."

cvanwey said:
3). Why gloss right over this point? Doesn't this raise major pause? We are only speaking about the 'greatest claim(s)' in human history here. The Gospels ARE the accounts of His resurrection, according to Christians. If they ARE 'biased and unreliable in many respects', then why even continue?

Paul's letters and the Gospels were written within few decades of Jesus life. This doesn't really give enough time for a legend to develop. Also, for what purpose would the disciples invent such a legend? Did they gain millions of dollars? No, they gained abuse, imprisonment, and bloody executions.

If you believe the NT is a legend, we might as well be talking about God in Islam or Hinduism!

cvanwey · Aug 11, 2020

Andrewn said:
You probably already guessed that I would say "free will." OTOH, animals have strong "instincts."

Your response does not follow. Let's back up here... Remember the analogy I provided?

You are walking down a path, and hear a noise. You do NOT impose 'free will' to immediately discern caution, in case it is a predator. You either do, or you do not, involuntarily. The ones that did not involuntarily first discern danger, are 'out of here'.

If God made 'man' in His image, all would first discern danger. Not just some. This looks to present a conflict.

Andrewn said:
God's image in humans is not physical.

God makes many distinctions, attributing to specific physical traits. Please take note of the underlined parts.

"And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

I now ask again in earnest, do you really think God's description of man, in 'His likeness', was a 4-foot-tall hairy homo sapien?

Andrewn said:
God loves variety and wants humans to share that love / appreciation for nature. Why else do all people want hoses by the ocean or lake?

I made a serious observation, and would equally appreciate a serious response. If humans are God's preferred creation, why do so by way of the process of convoluted macroevolution?

Andrewn said:
Some people find evidence for God in the universe or in physics and mathematics. I find incredible intelligent design in plants, animals, and humans. This is starting from anatomy to physiology to biochemistry which are all so intelligently designed even at the sub cellular level. You will not be able to convince me otherwise because you may be able to study these subjects to the same depth but will not be able to study these subjects in more depth. Now, are there people who studied the same and do not believe. Most likely yes. I guess that is their problem not mine.

So you admit that your conclusion for God, is a fallacious one?

Are you familiar with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial?

Andrewn said:
Like I said I believe there is only one God and I don't use the counterfeit except to describe animism and polytheism. But even these occasionally have a belief in one spirit behind them such as the native American Great Spirit. We have distinguishable finger prints, voices, and facial characteristics. Specialists can read a letter and determine whether Paul wrote it or not. I believe we similarly have distinguishable personal religions. Everyone's belief is different from others, even those who share his same "denomination."

All believers believe their rendition of God(s) is/are the correct one(s). Many of whom all provide evidence, by way of anecdotal personal experience, (including you).

Please recall the video... It shows professed believers, from opposing positions of faith, whom look to be just as sincere in perceived contact, just like you. They cannot all be right. Can they? But they and you could all certainly be wrong? Why is yours authentic, while opposing ones are counterfeit?

Andrewn said:
Paul's letters and the Gospels were written within few decades of Jesus life. This doesn't really give enough time for a legend to develop. Also, for what purpose would the disciples invent such a legend? Did they gain millions of dollars? No, they gained abuse, imprisonment, and bloody executions.

If you believe the NT is a legend, we might as well be talking about God in Islam or Hinduism!

So much to unpack here.... I'll just make counter statements, for starters. Feel free to challenge any of them specifically. Why am I not going to go into great detail, as of yet? Because even if I crush all your points, even leading to your concession, you will continue to remain a believer. It is likely an exercise in futility. The only topic which will address the reason for your belief, is the topic of 'revelation.'

- Legend has plenty of time to develop -- especially a few decades worth.
- The disciples did not craft the Gospels, unknown later authors wrote them. We do not know the author's intentions, biases, motivations, or reasons. Heck, we need not go much further than Mark 16:9-20. This is a clear later addition.
- We do not really know how most of the disciples died.
- If you read the Bible, from the a priori of a legendary standpoint, many 'dots' look to then be connected.

Andrewn · Aug 12, 2020

cvanwey said:
You are walking down a path, and hear a noise. You do NOT impose 'free will' to immediately discern caution, in case it is a predator. You either do, or you do not, involuntarily. The ones that did not involuntarily first discern danger, are 'out of here'.

You think people are glorified apes following instinct. I don't. People can certainly choose to respond to the "noise" in any manner they like. A smart person will assess the quality of the noise and may decide to take safety precautions. And stupid people still live on, they're not out of here.

Human beings have something akin of instinct. Freud called it the "id." But gradually during childhood this is modulated by the "ego" and the "superego."

cvanwey said:
If God made 'man' in His image, all would first discern danger. Not just some. This looks to present a conflict.

No, God has free will and He created people with free will. We've talked about how free will is not completely limitless but it is free within the limits of genetics and environment. I thought you'd know my views by now, even if you're not convinced they're true.

cvanwey said:
I now ask again in earnest, do you really think God's description of man, in 'His likeness', was a 4-foot-tall hairy homo sapien?

It could indeed have been that or it could have been a subset of Homo sapien. The earliest fossil evidence of early Homo sapiens appears in Africa around 300,000 years ago. But they developed a capacity for language and behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. Was this development due to taking God's image? Was it accompanied by physical changes? It's possible but not necessary to maintain a belief in God. He doesn't look like us anyway.

cvanwey said:
If humans are God's preferred creation, why do so by way of the process of convoluted macroevolution?

My answer was quite serious. God loves beauty and loves variety. Maybe He enjoyed watching all this take place for millions of years. Do you watch movies? Do you like to have a house by the ocean? You're made in God's image. Even though I have no artistic abilities, I think God has special fondness of artists who create beautiful music, paint beautiful pictures, etc. What kind of answers do you usually get from Christians?

cvanwey said:
So you admit that your conclusion for God, is a fallacious one? Are you familiar with the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial?

I wasn't familiar with this trial but I went online and read about it. I think it's stupid not to present all different theories of origin to students. It is dictatorship to present only one theory.

cvanwey said:
All believers believe their rendition of God(s) is/are the correct one(s). Many of whom all provide evidence, by way of anecdotal personal experience, (including you). Please recall the video... It shows professed believers, from opposing positions of faith, whom look to be just as sincere in perceived contact, just like you. They cannot all be right. Can they? But they and you could all certainly be wrong? Why is yours authentic, while opposing ones are counterfeit?

As I said, every single human being has their own personal set of beliefs or disbeliefs. I believe there is one God and that all who believe in one God are trying their best to follow Him. A misguided person is not one who believes in a different denomination or religion but is one who abuses or kills followers of a different religion or denomination. So, a misguided person can be a Hindu terrorist, an Islamist, or the Pope himself. What kind of answers do you usually get from Christians?

cvanwey said:
- Legend has plenty of time to develop -- especially a few decades worth.
- The disciples did not craft the Gospels, unknown later authors wrote them. We do not know the author's intentions, biases, motivations, or reasons. Heck, we need not go much further than Mark 16:9-20. This is a clear later addition.
- We do not really know how most of the disciples died.
- If you read the Bible, from the a priori of a legendary standpoint, many 'dots' look to then be connected.

You have the God-given right to your free will opinion. A right which was denied to creationists in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2020

Andrewn said:
You think people are glorified apes following instinct. I don't. People can certainly choose to respond to the "noise" in any manner they like. A smart person will assess the quality of the noise and may decide to take safety precautions. And stupid people still live on, they're not out of here.

Human beings have something akin of instinct. Freud called it the "id." But gradually during childhood this is modulated by the "ego" and the "superego."

No, God has free will and He created people with free will. We've talked about how free will is not completely limitless but it is free within the limits of genetics and environment. I thought you'd know my views by now, even if you're not convinced they're true.

Involuntary response(s) does not involve free will, in any capacity. My point was to demonstrate that to mention the term 'free will' is irrelevant here.

Andrewn said:
It could indeed have been that or it could have been a subset of Homo sapien. The earliest fossil evidence of early Homo sapiens appears in Africa around 300,000 years ago. But they developed a capacity for language and behavioral modernity about 50,000 years ago. Was this development due to taking God's image? Was it accompanied by physical changes? It's possible but not necessary to maintain a belief in God. He doesn't look like us anyway.

Your assertion is that Genesis is strictly metaphorical here. I've provided Verse to elude to the contrary. That God distinguishes characteristics, using physical traits. What do you have in rebuttal? And how do you know what He looks like anyways?

Andrewn said:
My answer was quite serious. God loves beauty and loves variety. Maybe He enjoyed watching all this take place for millions of years. Do you watch movies? Do you like to have a house by the ocean? You're made in God's image. Even though I have no artistic abilities, I think God has special fondness of artists who create beautiful music, paint beautiful pictures, etc. What kind of answers do you usually get from Christians?

Half the Christians I speak with flat out reject evolutionary theory, because it conflicts with Genesis. The other half appear to pull answers out of their keister.

God's plan, was to design the Universe for His primary creation. Create one small planet. Spawn the beginnings of life there, watch it branch out for billions of years, await 'humans' to finally develop, await their cognitive abilities to more-so develop, etc...

Later inspire a 'creation story', which later looks to contradict in discovery, but hope that humans can later figure this out and connect the 'actual' dots. And now, I just so happen to be conversing with the one whom has figured it all out. Awesome

Andrewn said:
I wasn't familiar with this trial but I went online and read about it. I think it's stupid not to present all different theories of origin to students. It is dictatorship to present only one theory.

Do you understand what the word 'theory' means in this case, via science?

Maybe there should not be a restriction, to exclude any alternative 'theories' on gravity, cells, germs, etc..,

The creationists had their "day in court", and they lost royally. It was a fair trial. What's ironic about this whole case, was that it was the proponents of the creationist side, which demonstrated deception. If you care to embrace the entire scope of this landmark case, without reading tons of transcripts, simply watch the entire NOVA documentary -- (Brace yourself, it's long. Grab some popcorn):

Andrewn said:
As I said, every single human being has their own personal set of beliefs or disbeliefs. I believe there is one God and that all who believe in one God are trying their best to follow Him. A misguided person is not one who believes in a different denomination or religion but is one who abuses or kills followers of a different religion or denomination. So, a misguided person can be a Hindu terrorist, an Islamist, or the Pope himself. What kind of answers do you usually get from Christians?

I get all kinds of answers. But none of them seem to align with 'logic'. Including yours... In the Bible, on many occasions, God ordered the slaughter of others. God seems okay with slavery. God encourages physical abuse towards your child.

But even putting all this aside, you still did not address my direct question(s). Please try again.

The provided video shows professed believers, from completely opposing positions of faith - (all over the world), whom look to be just as sincere in perceived contact, just like you. They cannot all be right. Can they? But they and you could all certainly be wrong? Why is yours authentic, while opposing ones are counterfeit?

Andrewn said:
You have the God-given right to your free will opinion. A right which was denied to creationists in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

I watched the video. I never mention Bart E. My direct response to this scholar's 'defense' however...

Okay, we acquire the original copies of the NT. Does this now make what the originals say, more true? If so, then I'm afraid the Holy Qur'an is now 'more true' as well :0

And yes, as I also stated prior, after Constantine, Christianity was encouraged. Hence, the later copies. Having 20,000,000 copies of something makes it no more or less true. If so, then logically apply this argument alone, to any popular published work.

If you look at my actual points, they are as follows:

- Legend (you have decades of oral tradition alone prior to anything being written down.)
- We do not know who wrote the first copies? Why is this important? (We cannot discern or truly know the author's intentions, sources, biases, motivations, or reasons. We cannot ask them.)
- We see later black/white additions manifest, which looks to be added for flavor (Mark 16:9-20)
- It's not a shocker that we have little information about how the disciples actually died?

Andrewn · Aug 13, 2020

cvanwey said:
Your assertion is that Genesis is strictly metaphorical here. I've provided Verse to elude to the contrary. That God distinguishes characteristics, using physical traits. What do you have in rebuttal? And how do you know what He looks like anyways?

The Lord said:

Joh 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.”

Does God have a body like you and me? No. He created us in His spiritual image. Physically, we may be in the physical image of apes. Genesis is not strictly metaphorical but contains metaphors:

Gen 3:24 He drove mankind out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

It's obvious we don't see cherubim east of any garden. So, either this is metaphorical or mankind were created on a different planet.

cvanwey said:
Do you understand what the word 'theory' means in this case, via science? Maybe there should not be a restriction, to exclude any alternative 'theories' on gravity, cells, germs, etc..,

A theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." And as far as theories on gravity, cells, and germs, they continue to develop and be modified all the time. And we should present all of them to students to widen their perspectives rather than produce robots who cannot think for themselves. But this is only my opinion.

cvanwey said:
The creationists had their "day in court", and they lost royally. It was a fair trial. What's ironic about this whole case, was that it was the proponents of the creationist side, which demonstrated deception. If you care to embrace the entire scope of this landmark case, without reading tons of transcripts, simply watch the entire NOVA documentary -- (Brace yourself, it's long. Grab some popcorn):

I'll watch the video later. But a court case depends on which side of a debate is more clever. If you win a debate it proves that you're better prepared than me. It doesn't prove that you're presenting the truth. I don't about the contents of the ID book that was rejected. Maybe I would have rejected it also.

cvanwey said:
In the Bible, on many occasions, God ordered the slaughter of others. God seems okay with slavery. God encourages physical abuse towards your child.

Each one of these accusations needs a proper discussion. While I don't accept any of them, I'm especially concerned about the 3rd accusation. Where do you get this idea from? On the contrary, Jesus said:

Mat 18:6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who trust in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea!

cvanwey said:
But even putting all this aside, you still did not address my direct question(s). Please try again. The provided video shows professed believers, from completely opposing positions of faith - (all over the world), whom look to be just as sincere in perceived contact, just like you. They cannot all be right. Can they? But they and you could all certainly be wrong? Why is yours authentic, while opposing ones are counterfeit?

I did answer this question but my answer is not logical to you. To be logical to you, I have to condemn other beliefs and consign them to eternal hell. I will not.

cvanwey said:
- Legend (you have decades of oral tradition alone prior to anything being written down.)
- We do not know who wrote the first copies? Why is this important? (We cannot discern or truly know the author's intentions, sources, biases, motivations, or reasons. We cannot ask them.)
- We see later black/white additions manifest, which looks to be added for flavor (Mark 16:9-20)
- It's not a shocker that we have little information about how the disciples actually died?

Like I said, Christians did not have the motive or the opportunity to create a legend. You don't accept this. So be it. You have God-given free will. You can reject His only unique Son and you can reject eternal life and you can go studying evidence against God's existence. You have the God-given intellect to do all that instead of going online to see how your objections are answered. Don't think that rejection of God is a sign of intelligence and modernity, people have done this since OT times.

Ps 53:1 The fool says in his heart:
“There is no God.”

The question is who do you choose to follow and why? Nietzsche announced that he is the anti-Christ. You can follow him or you can follow the Son of God.

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2020

Andrewn said:
The Lord said:

Joh 4:24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and truth.”

Sure, God is also Spirit. I'm aware and have already acknowledged the concept of the trinity. But what does He resemble? The provided Verses, via Genesis 1, elude to His physical attributes; apart and differing from all other 'kinds'. I would assume you would agree that God would consider apes a differing 'kind'?

Again:

"26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Andrewn said:
Does God have a body like you and me? No. He created us in His spiritual image. Physically, we may be in the physical image of apes. Genesis is not strictly metaphorical but contains metaphors:

Gen 3:24 He drove mankind out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction, to guard the way to the tree of life.

I already conceded, long ago, that the Bible has some literal, physical, and metaphorical parts. 'Hermeneutics' comes into play. But Genesis 1:26-27 eludes to physical attributes. God suggests our image, which is not like other kinds, is like Him.

Andrewn said:
A theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained." And as far as theories on gravity, cells, and germs, they continue to develop and be modified all the time. And we should present all of them to students to widen their perspectives rather than produce robots who cannot think for themselves. But this is only my opinion.

Sure, practically all science updates. And maybe always will. I.D. does not look to be one those 'theories'. It is more-so a blank assertion, and often times reveals fallacious reasoning. What is the 'philosophy of science'?

"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science."

I trust we would agree this would involve asking questions, challenging assumptions, and following the evidence. When the evidence looks to reach a conclusion - still continue to cross-reference, via peer review.

Just because we do not know something with 100% certainty, does not mean it is not logical to rule out some other proposed options. I'll give you an analogy I've given others.

1) 5K years ago - 'the world is flat'
2) 80 years ago - 'the world is a perfect sphere'
3) 25 years ago - 'the world is pair shaped'

Question... Can we reasonably rule out option 1), in spite of the fact option 3) might still be replaced with an option 4) someday?

Thus far, I.D. as the conclusion, kind of falls within the same lines as above. Is it as clear as 'the world is flat' claim? NO. Because quite frankly, I.D. is virtually unfalsifiable. -- Which leads to an infinite amount of room for the topic of apologetics

Where-as the shape of the earth is likely not really debatable; even though there may always to continue the existence of the 'flat-earth-society'..

If you watch the video, and yes, it's long, it will raise many points. You've made some very specific and direct statements, in your last couple of responses. This documentary addresses them head on....

Andrewn said:
I'll watch the video later. But a court case depends on which side of a debate is more clever. If you win a debate it proves that you're better prepared than me. It doesn't prove that you're presenting the truth. I don't about the contents of the ID book that was rejected. Maybe I would have rejected it also.

I would agree, in part. Heck, look at the OJ trial

Please watch the video. I selected this case because it directly addresses some of your prior given assertions/statements.

Andrewn said:
Each one of these accusations needs a proper discussion. While I don't accept any of them, I'm especially concerned about the 3rd accusation. Where do you get this idea from? On the contrary, Jesus said:

Mat 18:6 “But whoever causes one of these little ones who trust in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck and to be sunk in the depth of the sea!

As I see it, they do not need a proper discussion. Why? Because even if you come to my side completely, and then go against all your prior assertions, you will not change your belief. Your belief is purely about your perceived revelation. But for kicks, I'll address what you have just stated anyways.

In your prior response, you stated:

"A misguided person is not one who believes in a different denomination or religion but is one who abuses or kills followers of a different religion or denomination. So, a misguided person can be a Hindu terrorist, an Islamist, or the Pope himself."

Apparently, God said to kill all non-believers:

"If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him"

Apparently, God also said to 'abuse' your children:

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him."

"The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother."

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die."

"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"

And I have already addressed this prior statement. --- That God issues the 'golden rule.' Heck, I even made an entire topic about it. God is the provider of confusion. Just take the topics of commanded genocide, slavery, and child 'abuse' alone, and simply compare them all against Matthew 7:12.?.?.?

All these individuals state they are doing God's work. But as we can see, even from the Bible itself, in regards to the topics of genocide, slavery, and beating your child, all these claims apparently come from your professed God as well?

Andrewn said:
I did answer this question but my answer is not logical to you. To be logical to you, I have to condemn other beliefs and consign them to eternal hell. I will not.

I'm not even talking about hell here. I asked simple question(s). Please allow me to rephrase them, for clarity.

Someone claims they speak to God and has a two-way dialogue. We see this in the video, from many completely differing religions. They all look earnest, and convincing even. Here's the question(s).

** Is there a way or ways to distinguish the real occurrences, from the counterfeit occurrences? **

** Is it also safe to say that at least some of these occurrences are counterfeit, even if felt to be in earnest by the individual whom experiences the event? **

** Is it also possible that all these experiences are counterfeit? **

Thus far, you stated that the ones which lead to abuse or terrorism are not genuine. But as we can see, the Bible itself endorses many topics of 'abuse'. Your given response does not follow.

Please try again.

Andrewn said:
Like I said, Christians did not have the motive or the opportunity to create a legend. You don't accept this. So be it.

I never doubted their beliefs. Many people believed then, and many do now. The problem I have, there looks to be no way to verify the original claimed events. All we have is decades of oral tradition, followed by anonymous writings of the claimed supernatural. Yet again, why is it so important to know who the authors were, in this case? So we may know of any biases, motivations, and what sources they actually used?

- Do you agree oral tradition is a flawed method of communication, and is likely not the 'best' methodology for claims to absolute truth?

- Do you agree oral tradition alone was the only mechanism used to 'comport' such a story/stories, for decades, before someone decided to place pen to paper?

- Do you agree that it's likely the Gospel authors received their source information, not via direct/corroborated eye witness attestation, but from circulating oral tradition?

- Do you agree that people of this era especially, were superstitious?

- Do you agree this religion did not truly take off, until after Constantine? Leading to thousands of later copies?

- Do you agree that 10 billions copies of anything has no relevancy to whether or not the actual claim is true?

- Do you agree that we have confirmed post hoc entries to what Christians label the NT (Mark 16:9-20 for example)?

- Do you agree that the only way to verify or validate a one time claimed supernatural event, is direct corroborated eye witness attestation?

- Do you agree that we really do not have corroborated eye witnesses?

- Do you agree we really do not have enough evidence to know how the disciples died?

- Do you agree that legend spawns from oral tradition?

- Do you agree that legend can occur, after a few decades?

etc........

Andrewn said:
You have God-given free will. You can reject His only unique Son and you can reject eternal life and you can go studying evidence against God's existence. You have the God-given intellect to do all that instead of going online to see how your objections are answered. Don't think that rejection of God is a sign of intelligence and modernity, people have done this since OT times.

Ps 53:1 The fool says in his heart:
“There is no God.”

The question is who do you choose to follow and why? Nietzsche announced that he is the anti-Christ. You can follow him or you can follow the Son of God.

Let's discuss the tenets and claims to revelation. You can start by answering and addressing the (3) given questions above, identified in **astericks**.

Andrewn · Aug 13, 2020

cvanwey said:
But what does He resemble? The provided Verses, via Genesis 1, elude to His physical attributes; apart and differing from all other 'kinds'. I would assume you would agree that God would consider apes a differing 'kind'?

cvanwey said:
But Genesis 1:26-27 eludes to physical attributes. God suggests our image, which is not like other kinds, is like Him.

Elude means to "evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way."

cvanwey said:
Just because we do not know something with 100% certainty, does not mean it is not logical to rule out some other proposed options. I'll give you an analogy I've given others.

1) 5K years ago - 'the world is flat'
2) 80 years ago - 'the world is a perfect sphere'
3) 25 years ago - 'the world is pair shaped'

I strongly agree. Science continuously advances and finds new explanations, which is great. If I insist that the world is flat or perfect sphere, then I'm definitely wrong. If I insist that the world is "pear-shaped" then I'm probably wrong and probably right.

cvanwey said:
If you watch the video, and yes, it's long, it will raise many points. You've made some very specific and direct statements, in your last couple of responses. This documentary addresses them head on....

I did watch the entire video. It only reminded me of the following incident:

Joh 19:11 Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above. That’s why the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

Any judge in that case would have had to overturn the school board decision on the evidence that it was "religiously motivated." This is not to excuse him by any means but the bigger sinner is not the judge but the prosecutors and the 7 Supreme Court justices who made such a motive illegal in a 1987 decision.

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia

I'll get to the rest of your message. As always, you raise important issues.

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2020

Andrewn said:
Elude means to "evade or escape from (a danger, enemy, or pursuer), typically in a skillful or cunning way."

You did not address my point at all. You instead only looked to find an error in word choice. I have found errors in your syntax as well. This is a forum arena. Not English Lit. 101. You avoided the actual message. Sure, you are welcome to raise the point. However, you left it at that, in an attempt to discredit the actual observation made, or to instead raise a red herring.. To onlookers, this might present yet another topic, for which you have conceded, by not engaging further?

But regardless, the bigger picture is the topic of revelation. I see this as the ONLY topic for your belief. I'll be patiently awaiting your response there

Andrewn said:
I strongly agree. Science continuously advances and finds new explanations, which is great. If I insist that the world is flat or perfect sphere, then I'm definitely wrong. If I insist that the world is "pear-shaped" then I'm probably wrong and probably right.

Again, you did not address the 'fruit' of the discussion. Does this mean you have now conceded the point entirely? See below again for reference...

Sure, practically all science updates. And maybe always will. I.D. does not look to be one of those 'theories'. It is more-so a blank assertion, and often times reveals fallacious reasoning. What is the 'philosophy of science'?

"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science."

I trust we would agree this would involve asking questions, challenging assumptions, and following the evidence. When the evidence looks to reach a conclusion - still continue to cross-reference, via peer review.

Thus far, I.D. as the conclusion, kind of falls within the same lines as above. Is it as clear as 'the world is flat' claim? NO. Because quite frankly, I.D. is virtually unfalsifiable. -- Which leads to an infinite amount of room for the topic of apologetics Where-as the shape of the earth is likely not really debatable; even though there may always to continue the existence of the 'flat-earth-society'..

Andrewn said:
I did watch the entire video. It only reminded me of the following incident:

Joh 19:11 Jesus replied, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above. That’s why the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”

Any judge in that case would have had to overturn the school board decision on the evidence that it was "religiously motivated." This is not to excuse him by any means but the bigger sinner is not the judge but the prosecutors and the 7 Supreme Court justices who made such a motive illegal in a 1987 decision.

Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia

I'll get to the rest of your message. As always, you raise important issues.

This video addressed some of your direct points. This is why I selected this publication. Have you now changed those points?

- Like it or not, we are a lot like apes. Look at Chromosome #2.

- If you too acknowledge that evolution by natural selection is just as much fact as gravitational theory, germ theory, and cell theory, then why aren't you concerned about the lack in presented alternative 'theories' elsewhere?

- Ken Miller himself even labelled I.D. a 'science stopper.' It stops science in it's tracks. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why not?

- 'Irreducible complexity' was addressed... You stated the 'world' is too complex.

- I.D. is not backed by the scientific method, it is backed by religion.

etc..........

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2020

I would like to apologize to @Clizby WampusCat for completely hijacking the thread.

I'm going to please ask that @Andrewn address all future correspondence on the more appropriate thread 'Knowledge' of Existence

I will re-present relevant content, to pick up where we have left off there.

Sorry all!

Andrewn · Aug 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
But Genesis 1:26-27 eludes to physical attributes. God suggests our image, which is not like other kinds, is like Him.

No, it doesn't. The orthodox Christian belief is that God doesn't have physical attributes. We get our physical attributes from apes.

cvanwey said:
I.D. does not look to be one those 'theories'. It is more-so a blank assertion, and often times reveals fallacious reasoning. What is the 'philosophy of science'? "Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science." I trust we would agree this would involve asking questions, challenging assumptions, and following the evidence. When the evidence looks to reach a conclusion - still continue to cross-reference, via peer review.

The question of whether evolution is spontaneous or through ID can only be approached through a combined study of molecular genetics and mathematics.

cvanwey said:
Apparently, God said to kill all non-believers: "If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him"

This passage is from Deuteronomy 13, which is traditionally attributed to the Prophet Moses. Most scholars believe that the Deuteronomic Code was composed during the late monarchic period, around the time of King Josiah (late 7th century BCE), although some scholars have argued for a later date, either during the Babylonian captivity (597-539 BCE) or during the Persian period (539-332 BCE) [Wikipedia].

There is no evidence that that idea was actually carried out. But it is a clear warning that worshipping the gods of other nations is tantamount to national treason and is punishable by death. Note that King Josiah reigned after the fall of Samaria and that his little kingdom was surrounded by the powerful Assyrian army. National unity was very important.

cvanwey said:
Apparently, God also said to 'abuse' your children:

"Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him."

"The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother."

"Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die."

"Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"

All these statements are from the book of Proverbs, which, like wise sayings of all countries, frequently says one thing and its opposite with the hope of promoting balance or knowing that reactions depend on the situation and are not set in stone. No one in the Bible promotes child abuse.

cvanwey said:
All these individuals state they are doing God's work. But as we can see, even from the Bible itself, in regards to the topics of genocide, slavery, and beating your child, all these claims apparently come from your professed God as well?

I quoted the following verses before and I'm quoting them again bec of their importance:

Jam 3:1-2 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

2Pe 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result the way of the truth will be maligned. In their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

cvanwey said:
Someone claims they speak to God and has a two-way dialogue. We see this in the video, from many completely differing religions. They all look earnest, and convincing even. Here's the question(s).

** Is there a way or ways to distinguish the real occurrences, from the counterfeit occurrences? **

** Is it also safe to say that at least some of these occurrences are counterfeit, even if felt to be in earnest by the individual whom experiences the event? **

** Is it also possible that all these experiences are counterfeit? **

Thus far, you stated that the ones which lead to abuse or terrorism are not genuine.

If they look earnest then they're earnest. I accept them at face value. The details are between each person and God. It's not my business unless they are abusers or terrorists. This does not at all mean that I'm against Christian evangelism. On the contrary, it is quite important to proclaim the Good News of God's salvation and the Lordship of Jesus.

cvanwey said:
All we have is decades of oral tradition, followed by anonymous writings of the claimed supernatural. Yet again, why is it so important to know who the authors were, in this case? So we may know of any biases, motivations, and what sources they actually used?

- Do you agree oral tradition is a flawed method of communication, and is likely not the 'best' methodology for claims to absolute truth?

It would have been far better to have videos of Jesus with picture and sound. The we should know for sure that happened and exactly what he said. Unfortunately, they didn't have this technology in the 1st century.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree oral tradition alone was the only mechanism used to 'comport' such a story/stories, for decades, before someone decided to place pen to paper?

We don't know whether the disciples had writing materials with them or not or when exactly they started writing their memoirs.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that it's likely the Gospel authors received their source information, not via direct/corroborated eye witness attestation, but from circulating oral tradition?

No, definitely not.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that people of this era especially, were superstitious?

No, for example, everyone knew that dead bodies didn't rise.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree this religion did not truly take off, until after Constantine? Leading to thousands of later copies?

No and no. Constantine adopted Christianity to unify the empire. It was already the majority. And NT manuscripts older than the 4th century are available.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that 10 billions copies of anything has no relevancy to whether or not the actual claim is true?

It depends on their dates. If their dates are close to the original then their agreement becomes very decisive.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that we have confirmed post hoc entries to what Christians label the NT (Mark 16:9-20 for example)?

Whether you include or remove Mar 16:9-20 makes absolutely no difference in doctrine.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that the only way to verify or validate a one time claimed supernatural event, is direct corroborated eye witness attestation?

Yes.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that we really do not have corroborated eye witnesses?

No.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree we really do not have enough evidence to know how the disciples died?

No, we do have reports of their life and death.

cvanwey said:
- Do you agree that legend spawns from oral tradition?

- Do you agree that legend can occur, after a few decades?

There was no sufficient time for legends to develop before writing the NT. No opportunity. No motive. No crime.

cvanwey said:
- Like it or not, we are a lot like apes. Look at Chromosome #2.

I did say that we are a lot like apes (see above).

cvanwey said:
- If you too acknowledge that evolution by natural selection is just as much fact as gravitational theory, germ theory, and cell theory, then why aren't you concerned about the lack in presented alternative 'theories' elsewhere?

Why should I be concerned about this?

cvanwey said:
- Ken Miller himself even labelled I.D. a 'science stopper.' It stops science in it's tracks. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why not?

- 'Irreducible complexity' was addressed... You stated the 'world' is too complex.

- I.D. is not backed by the scientific method, it is backed by religion.

One day we will do complex calculations based on advanced knowledge of molecular genetics and we'll find out whether spontaneous mutations are sufficient with natural selection for the entire evolution from amebae to humans.

Clizby WampusCat · Aug 14, 2020

cvanwey said:
I would like to apologize to @Clizby WampusCat for completely hijacking the thread. I'm going to please ask that @Andrewn address all future correspondence on the more appropriate thread 'Knowledge' of Existence

I will re-present relevant content, to pick up where we have left off there.

Sorry all!

No need to apologize. I don't care. I am sure I have hijacked many a thread.

cvanwey · Aug 14, 2020

Andrewn said:
No, it doesn't. The orthodox Christian belief is that God doesn't have physical attributes. We get our physical attributes from apes.

The question of whether evolution is spontaneous or through ID can only be approached through a combined study of molecular genetics and mathematics.

This passage is from Deuteronomy 13, which is traditionally attributed to the Prophet Moses. Most scholars believe that the Deuteronomic Code was composed during the late monarchic period, around the time of King Josiah (late 7th century BCE), although some scholars have argued for a later date, either during the Babylonian captivity (597-539 BCE) or during the Persian period (539-332 BCE) [Wikipedia].

There is no evidence that that idea was actually carried out. But it is a clear warning that worshipping the gods of other nations is tantamount to national treason and is punishable by death. Note that King Josiah reigned after the fall of Samaria and that his little kingdom was surrounded by the powerful Assyrian army. National unity was very important.

All these statements are from the book of Proverbs, which, like wise sayings of all countries, frequently says one thing and its opposite with the hope of promoting balance or knowing that reactions depend on the situation and are not set in stone. No one in the Bible promotes child abuse.

I quoted the following verses before and I'm quoting them again bec of their importance:

Jam 3:1-2 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.

Mat 7:22-23 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

2Pe 2:1-3 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result the way of the truth will be maligned. In their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

If they look earnest then they're earnest. I accept them at face value. The details are between each person and God. It's not my business unless they are abusers or terrorists. This does not at all mean that I'm against Christian evangelism. On the contrary, it is quite important to proclaim the Good News of God's salvation and the Lordship of Jesus.

It would have been far better to have videos of Jesus with picture and sound. The we should know for sure that happened and exactly what he said. Unfortunately, they didn't have this technology in the 1st century.

We don't know whether the disciples had writing materials with them or not or when exactly they started writing their memoirs.

No, definitely not.

No, for example, everyone knew that dead bodies didn't rise.

No and no. Constantine adopted Christianity to unify the empire. It was already the majority. And NT manuscripts older than the 4th century are available.

It depends on their dates. If their dates are close to the original then their agreement becomes very decisive.

Whether you include or remove Mar 16:9-20 makes absolutely no difference in doctrine.

Yes.

No.

No, we do have reports of their life and death.

There was no sufficient time for legends to develop before writing the NT. No opportunity. No motive. No crime.

I did say that we are a lot like apes (see above).

Why should I be concerned about this?

One day we will do complex calculations based on advanced knowledge of molecular genetics and we'll find out whether spontaneous mutations are sufficient with natural selection for the entire evolution from amebae to humans.

All addressed in Post #714 ('Knowledge' of Existence)

Search

Search

God and Sin

Andrewn

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

Andrewn

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

Andrewn

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

Andrewn

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

Andrewn

Well-Known Member

More options

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member

More options

cvanwey

Well-Known Member

More options

Similar threads